Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=75.886, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=311]=212, stp[ipn_0]=72.8731).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=67.1938, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=296]=46, stp[ipn_0]=65.9524).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2381 | control, N = 1191 | treatment, N = 1191 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 238 | 51.30 ± 13.00 (23 - 75) | 50.77 ± 13.33 (23 - 75) | 51.82 ± 12.69 (28 - 75) | 0.534 |
gender | 238 | 0.316 | |||
f | 194 (82%) | 94 (79%) | 100 (84%) | ||
m | 44 (18%) | 25 (21%) | 19 (16%) | ||
occupation | 238 | ||||
day_training | 6 (2.5%) | 2 (1.7%) | 4 (3.4%) | ||
full_time | 26 (11%) | 13 (11%) | 13 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (13%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.7%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.5%) | ||
part_time | 42 (18%) | 23 (19%) | 19 (16%) | ||
retired | 57 (24%) | 26 (22%) | 31 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.4%) | 4 (3.4%) | 4 (3.4%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.7%) | 4 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.7%) | 3 (2.5%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 53 (22%) | 28 (24%) | 25 (21%) | ||
marital | 238 | 0.875 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
divore | 26 (11%) | 14 (12%) | 12 (10%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (1.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
married | 71 (30%) | 33 (28%) | 38 (32%) | ||
none | 113 (47%) | 58 (49%) | 55 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.3%) | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (8.0%) | 10 (8.4%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
edu | 238 | 0.622 | |||
bachelor | 48 (20%) | 20 (17%) | 28 (24%) | ||
diploma | 40 (17%) | 24 (20%) | 16 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.5%) | 4 (3.4%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 16 (6.7%) | 9 (7.6%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
primary | 20 (8.4%) | 9 (7.6%) | 11 (9.2%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 65 (27%) | 30 (25%) | 35 (29%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.5%) | 6 (5.0%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
fam_income | 238 | ||||
10001_12000 | 8 (3.4%) | 2 (1.7%) | 6 (5.0%) | ||
12001_14000 | 11 (4.6%) | 4 (3.4%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (5.0%) | 4 (3.4%) | 8 (6.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.1%) | 3 (2.5%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 10 (4.2%) | 7 (5.9%) | 3 (2.5%) | ||
20001_above | 40 (17%) | 24 (20%) | 16 (13%) | ||
2001_4000 | 35 (15%) | 17 (14%) | 18 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (13%) | 14 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 21 (8.8%) | 12 (10%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.4%) | 11 (9.2%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
below_2000 | 45 (19%) | 21 (18%) | 24 (20%) | ||
medication | 238 | 213 (89%) | 106 (89%) | 107 (90%) | 0.833 |
onset_duration | 238 | 15.16 ± 10.94 (0 - 63) | 14.84 ± 11.30 (0 - 56) | 15.48 ± 10.60 (0 - 63) | 0.655 |
onset_age | 238 | 36.14 ± 14.78 (-18 - 72) | 35.93 ± 13.78 (10 - 72) | 36.35 ± 15.76 (-18 - 68) | 0.830 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 238 | 48 (20%) | 23 (19%) | 25 (21%) | 0.747 |
diagnosis_delusional | 238 | 13 (5.5%) | 7 (5.9%) | 6 (5.0%) | 0.775 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 238 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 238 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 238 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 238 | ||||
no | 238 (100%) | 119 (100%) | 119 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 238 | 129 (54%) | 64 (54%) | 65 (55%) | 0.896 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 238 | 23 (9.7%) | 9 (7.6%) | 14 (12%) | 0.273 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 238 | 82 (34%) | 44 (37%) | 38 (32%) | 0.413 |
diagnosis_phobia | 238 | 9 (3.8%) | 3 (2.5%) | 6 (5.0%) | 0.499 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 238 | 3 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.5%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 238 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 238 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (10%) | 0.322 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2381 | control, N = 1191 | treatment, N = 1191 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 238 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.08 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 0.456 |
recovery_stage_b | 238 | 17.93 ± 2.95 (4 - 24) | 18.01 ± 3.13 (4 - 24) | 17.85 ± 2.77 (9 - 24) | 0.677 |
ras_confidence | 238 | 29.97 ± 5.63 (9 - 45) | 29.82 ± 5.76 (9 - 45) | 30.13 ± 5.51 (9 - 45) | 0.671 |
ras_willingness | 238 | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 11.61 ± 2.11 (5 - 15) | 11.70 ± 2.18 (3 - 15) | 0.763 |
ras_goal | 238 | 17.40 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 17.23 ± 3.34 (5 - 25) | 17.58 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 0.415 |
ras_reliance | 238 | 13.25 ± 2.87 (4 - 20) | 13.16 ± 2.83 (5 - 20) | 13.34 ± 2.91 (4 - 20) | 0.636 |
ras_domination | 238 | 9.82 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 10.02 ± 2.44 (3 - 15) | 9.62 ± 2.41 (3 - 15) | 0.211 |
symptom | 238 | 30.74 ± 9.96 (14 - 70) | 31.36 ± 10.62 (14 - 70) | 30.12 ± 9.27 (14 - 56) | 0.337 |
slof_work | 238 | 22.17 ± 4.63 (10 - 30) | 22.27 ± 4.36 (12 - 30) | 22.08 ± 4.90 (10 - 30) | 0.748 |
slof_relationship | 238 | 25.08 ± 5.76 (9 - 35) | 24.68 ± 5.82 (9 - 35) | 25.48 ± 5.69 (11 - 35) | 0.286 |
satisfaction | 238 | 20.49 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 19.90 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 21.08 ± 7.20 (5 - 35) | 0.210 |
mhc_emotional | 238 | 10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 19) | 10.77 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.96 ± 3.76 (3 - 19) | 0.705 |
mhc_social | 238 | 15.33 ± 6.01 (5 - 30) | 15.34 ± 6.08 (5 - 30) | 15.32 ± 5.96 (5 - 30) | 0.974 |
mhc_psychological | 238 | 21.87 ± 6.88 (6 - 36) | 21.84 ± 6.80 (6 - 36) | 21.90 ± 6.98 (6 - 36) | 0.948 |
resilisnce | 238 | 16.66 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 16.29 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 17.02 ± 4.68 (6 - 30) | 0.214 |
social_provision | 238 | 13.60 ± 2.78 (5 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.74 (5 - 20) | 13.95 ± 2.78 (5 - 20) | 0.050 |
els_value_living | 238 | 17.07 ± 3.17 (5 - 25) | 16.88 ± 3.13 (6 - 25) | 17.25 ± 3.21 (5 - 25) | 0.370 |
els_life_fulfill | 238 | 12.84 ± 3.37 (4 - 20) | 12.50 ± 3.44 (4 - 20) | 13.17 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 0.128 |
els | 238 | 29.90 ± 6.02 (9 - 45) | 29.39 ± 6.05 (11 - 45) | 30.42 ± 5.97 (9 - 45) | 0.186 |
social_connect | 238 | 27.05 ± 9.11 (8 - 48) | 27.56 ± 9.00 (8 - 48) | 26.53 ± 9.23 (8 - 48) | 0.382 |
shs_agency | 238 | 14.45 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 13.97 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 14.92 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 0.149 |
shs_pathway | 238 | 15.91 ± 4.23 (3 - 24) | 15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24) | 16.39 ± 4.05 (4 - 24) | 0.080 |
shs | 238 | 30.35 ± 8.85 (6 - 48) | 29.40 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.30 ± 8.65 (7 - 48) | 0.098 |
esteem | 238 | 12.76 ± 1.68 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.75 (9 - 20) | 12.71 ± 1.62 (10 - 20) | 0.701 |
mlq_search | 238 | 14.79 ± 3.50 (3 - 21) | 14.49 ± 3.55 (3 - 21) | 15.09 ± 3.43 (3 - 21) | 0.182 |
mlq_presence | 238 | 13.50 ± 4.27 (3 - 21) | 13.31 ± 4.17 (3 - 21) | 13.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 21) | 0.496 |
mlq | 238 | 28.29 ± 6.97 (6 - 42) | 27.80 ± 6.95 (6 - 42) | 28.78 ± 7.00 (6 - 42) | 0.278 |
empower | 238 | 19.26 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 19.00 ± 4.46 (6 - 30) | 19.51 ± 4.49 (6 - 30) | 0.377 |
ismi_resistance | 238 | 14.39 ± 2.63 (5 - 20) | 14.42 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 0.844 |
ismi_discrimation | 238 | 11.75 ± 3.07 (5 - 20) | 11.76 ± 3.03 (5 - 20) | 11.74 ± 3.11 (5 - 20) | 0.966 |
sss_affective | 238 | 10.49 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.57 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.727 |
sss_behavior | 238 | 10.14 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.22 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.07 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 0.759 |
sss_cognitive | 238 | 8.90 ± 3.86 (3 - 18) | 8.74 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 9.07 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.514 |
sss | 238 | 29.53 ± 10.70 (9 - 54) | 29.36 ± 10.59 (9 - 54) | 29.71 ± 10.85 (9 - 54) | 0.804 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.111 | 2.98, 3.42 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.118 | 0.157 | -0.426, 0.190 | 0.454 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.039 | 0.145 | -0.245, 0.323 | 0.789 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.305 | 0.208 | -0.104, 0.713 | 0.145 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.273 | 17.5, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.160 | 0.386 | -0.916, 0.597 | 0.679 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.209 | 0.275 | -0.747, 0.330 | 0.449 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.862 | 0.396 | 0.086, 1.64 | 0.031 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.523 | 28.8, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.311 | 0.739 | -1.14, 1.76 | 0.674 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.706 | 0.467 | -0.210, 1.62 | 0.133 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.27 | 0.674 | -0.056, 2.59 | 0.062 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.194 | 11.2, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.084 | 0.274 | -0.453, 0.621 | 0.759 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.075 | 0.203 | -0.324, 0.474 | 0.714 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.305 | 0.293 | -0.270, 0.879 | 0.300 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.305 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.353 | 0.431 | -0.493, 1.20 | 0.414 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.314 | 0.296 | -0.266, 0.895 | 0.290 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.543 | 0.427 | -0.293, 1.38 | 0.205 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.268 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.176 | 0.379 | -0.567, 0.920 | 0.642 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.261 | 0.248 | -0.225, 0.747 | 0.293 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.558 | 0.357 | -0.143, 1.26 | 0.121 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.222 | 9.58, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.395 | 0.315 | -1.01, 0.222 | 0.210 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.001 | 0.247 | -0.484, 0.486 | 0.996 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.858 | 0.356 | 0.160, 1.56 | 0.017 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.4 | 0.911 | 29.6, 33.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.24 | 1.288 | -3.77, 1.28 | 0.335 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.06 | 0.774 | -2.57, 0.461 | 0.174 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.324 | 1.116 | -2.51, 1.86 | 0.772 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.420 | 21.4, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.193 | 0.593 | -1.36, 0.970 | 0.745 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.257 | 0.399 | -0.524, 1.04 | 0.520 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.474 | 0.575 | -0.652, 1.60 | 0.411 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.7 | 0.525 | 23.7, 25.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.798 | 0.743 | -0.658, 2.25 | 0.284 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.088 | 0.496 | -1.06, 0.884 | 0.859 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.767 | 0.715 | -0.635, 2.17 | 0.285 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 0.663 | 18.6, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.937 | -0.660, 3.01 | 0.210 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.871 | 0.600 | -0.305, 2.05 | 0.149 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.313 | 0.865 | -1.38, 2.01 | 0.718 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.8 | 0.343 | 10.1, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.185 | 0.485 | -0.766, 1.14 | 0.704 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.381 | 0.288 | -0.184, 0.946 | 0.188 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.116 | 0.416 | -0.931, 0.699 | 0.780 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.561 | 14.2, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.025 | 0.793 | -1.58, 1.53 | 0.975 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.652 | 0.490 | -0.309, 1.61 | 0.186 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.001 | 0.707 | -1.39, 1.39 | 0.999 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.648 | 20.6, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.059 | 0.916 | -1.74, 1.86 | 0.949 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.993 | 0.570 | -0.124, 2.11 | 0.083 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.281 | 0.822 | -1.89, 1.33 | 0.733 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.405 | 15.5, 17.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.723 | 0.573 | -0.399, 1.84 | 0.208 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.748 | 0.397 | -0.031, 1.53 | 0.062 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.750 | 0.573 | -0.373, 1.87 | 0.192 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.260 | 12.7, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.706 | 0.368 | -0.015, 1.43 | 0.056 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.179 | 0.254 | -0.676, 0.319 | 0.482 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.502 | 0.366 | -0.215, 1.22 | 0.172 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.293 | 16.3, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.370 | 0.414 | -0.442, 1.18 | 0.373 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.333 | 0.280 | -0.216, 0.881 | 0.236 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.331 | 0.403 | -0.459, 1.12 | 0.413 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.306 | 11.9, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.664 | 0.433 | -0.184, 1.51 | 0.126 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.244 | 0.272 | -0.290, 0.778 | 0.373 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.312 | 0.393 | -0.458, 1.08 | 0.429 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.555 | 28.3, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 0.785 | -0.504, 2.57 | 0.189 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.601 | 0.476 | -0.333, 1.53 | 0.209 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.617 | 0.687 | -0.730, 1.96 | 0.371 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 0.847 | 25.9, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.03 | 1.197 | -3.38, 1.31 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.228 | 0.708 | -1.62, 1.16 | 0.748 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.76 | 1.022 | -4.77, -0.761 | 0.008 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.0 | 0.466 | 13.1, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.941 | 0.659 | -0.350, 2.23 | 0.154 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.376 | 0.388 | -0.385, 1.14 | 0.334 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.426 | 0.559 | -0.670, 1.52 | 0.447 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.377 | 14.7, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.958 | 0.533 | -0.087, 2.00 | 0.074 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.635 | 0.344 | -0.040, 1.31 | 0.067 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.182 | 0.497 | -0.791, 1.16 | 0.714 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.804 | 27.8, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.90 | 1.136 | -0.328, 4.13 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.670 | -0.295, 2.33 | 0.131 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.593 | 0.966 | -1.30, 2.49 | 0.541 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.146 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.084 | 0.207 | -0.490, 0.322 | 0.685 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.132 | 0.184 | -0.492, 0.228 | 0.474 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.089 | 0.264 | -0.428, 0.607 | 0.736 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.317 | 13.9, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.605 | 0.448 | -0.274, 1.48 | 0.178 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.844 | 0.347 | 0.164, 1.52 | 0.016 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.750 | 0.500 | -1.73, 0.230 | 0.136 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.387 | 12.6, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.378 | 0.547 | -0.695, 1.45 | 0.490 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.871 | 0.394 | 0.098, 1.64 | 0.029 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.073 | 0.568 | -1.19, 1.04 | 0.898 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 0.638 | 26.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.983 | 0.903 | -0.786, 2.75 | 0.277 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.72 | 0.660 | 0.425, 3.01 | 0.010 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.820 | 0.952 | -2.68, 1.05 | 0.390 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.416 | 18.2, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.513 | 0.588 | -0.639, 1.66 | 0.384 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.898 | 0.387 | 0.140, 1.66 | 0.021 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.268 | 0.557 | -1.36, 0.825 | 0.632 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.237 | 14.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.067 | 0.335 | -0.723, 0.588 | 0.841 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.272 | 0.276 | -0.269, 0.813 | 0.326 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.607 | 0.398 | -0.172, 1.39 | 0.129 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.282 | 11.2, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.017 | 0.399 | -0.800, 0.766 | 0.966 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.448 | 0.323 | -1.08, 0.184 | 0.167 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.641 | 0.465 | -1.55, 0.269 | 0.169 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.339 | 9.74, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.168 | 0.480 | -0.772, 1.11 | 0.726 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.418 | 0.309 | -1.02, 0.187 | 0.178 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.686 | 0.445 | -1.56, 0.187 | 0.125 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.345 | 9.54, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.151 | 0.488 | -1.11, 0.805 | 0.757 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.690 | 0.306 | -1.29, -0.090 | 0.025 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.074 | 0.441 | -0.938, 0.790 | 0.867 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.74 | 0.344 | 8.07, 9.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.328 | 0.487 | -0.626, 1.28 | 0.501 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.537 | 0.309 | -1.14, 0.068 | 0.084 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.577 | 0.445 | -1.45, 0.296 | 0.197 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.969 | 27.5, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.345 | 1.371 | -2.34, 3.03 | 0.802 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.61 | 0.790 | -3.16, -0.064 | 0.043 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.30 | 1.139 | -3.53, 0.938 | 0.257 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.98, 3.42], t(376) = 28.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19], t(376) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32], t(376) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.71], t(376) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.47, 18.54], t(376) = 66.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.60], t(376) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.33], t(376) = -0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.09, 1.64], t(376) = 2.18, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [0.03, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.82 (95% CI [28.79, 30.84], t(376) = 57.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.76], t(376) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.62], t(376) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.59], t(376) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-9.81e-03, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.61 (95% CI [11.23, 11.99], t(376) = 59.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.62], t(376) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.47], t(376) = 0.37, p = 0.713; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.88], t(376) = 1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.23 (95% CI [16.63, 17.82], t(376) = 56.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.20], t(376) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.89], t(376) = 1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.38], t(376) = 1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.63, 13.69], t(376) = 49.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.92], t(376) = 0.47, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.75], t(376) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.26], t(376) = 1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.02 (95% CI [9.58, 10.45], t(376) = 45.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.22], t(376) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14e-03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.49], t(376) = 4.59e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = 4.68e-04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.16, 1.56], t(376) = 2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.07, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.36 (95% CI [29.58, 33.15], t(376) = 34.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.77, 1.28], t(376) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.46], t(376) = -1.36, p = 0.172; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.51, 1.86], t(376) = -0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.27 (95% CI [21.45, 23.09], t(376) = 53.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.97], t(376) = -0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.04], t(376) = 0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.60], t(376) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.68 (95% CI [23.65, 25.71], t(376) = 46.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.25], t(376) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.88], t(376) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.17], t(376) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.90 (95% CI [18.60, 21.20], t(376) = 30.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.01], t(376) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.05], t(376) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.01], t(376) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.77 (95% CI [10.10, 11.45], t(376) = 31.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.14], t(376) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.95], t(376) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.70], t(376) = -0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.34 (95% CI [14.25, 16.44], t(376) = 27.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.53], t(376) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.61], t(376) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -9.99e-04, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.39], t(376) = -1.41e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -1.67e-04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.84 (95% CI [20.57, 23.11], t(376) = 33.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.86], t(376) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.45e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.11], t(376) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.33], t(376) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.50, 17.09], t(376) = 40.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(376) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.53], t(376) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-6.90e-03, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.87], t(376) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.73, 13.75], t(376) = 50.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.43], t(376) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-5.31e-03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.32], t(376) = -0.70, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.22], t(376) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(376) = 57.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.18], t(376) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.88], t(376) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.12], t(376) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.50 (95% CI [11.90, 13.10], t(376) = 40.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.51], t(376) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.78], t(376) = 0.89, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.08], t(376) = 0.79, p = 0.427; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.39 (95% CI [28.30, 30.47], t(376) = 52.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.57], t(376) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.53], t(376) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.96], t(376) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.56 (95% CI [25.90, 29.22], t(376) = 32.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.31], t(376) = -0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.62, 1.16], t(376) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.76, 95% CI [-4.77, -0.76], t(376) = -2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.51, -0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [13.06, 14.89], t(376) = 30.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.23], t(376) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.14], t(376) = 0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.52], t(376) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(376) = 40.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.00], t(376) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.31], t(376) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-9.56e-03, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.16], t(376) = 0.37, p = 0.713; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.83, 30.98], t(376) = 36.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.33, 4.13], t(376) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.33], t(376) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.49], t(376) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.51, 13.09], t(376) = 87.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.32], t(376) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.23], t(376) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61], t(376) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.49 (95% CI [13.87, 15.11], t(376) = 45.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.48], t(376) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.16, 1.52], t(376) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.05, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.23], t(376) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.55, 14.07], t(376) = 34.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.45], t(376) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [0.10, 1.64], t(376) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.04], t(376) = -0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [26.55, 29.05], t(376) = 43.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.75], t(376) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [0.42, 3.01], t(376) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.06, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.68, 1.05], t(376) = -0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.19, 19.81], t(376) = 45.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.66], t(376) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [0.14, 1.66], t(376) = 2.32, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.03, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.82], t(376) = -0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.96, 14.88], t(376) = 60.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.59], t(376) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.81], t(376) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.39], t(376) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.20, 12.31], t(376) = 41.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.77], t(376) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.18], t(376) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.27], t(376) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.74, 11.07], t(376) = 30.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.11], t(376) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.19], t(376) = -1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.19], t(376) = -1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.54, 10.89], t(376) = 29.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.81], t(376) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.09], t(376) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.79], t(376) = -0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.74 (95% CI [8.07, 9.41], t(376) = 25.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.28], t(376) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.07], t(376) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.30], t(376) = -1.30, p = 0.195; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.36 (95% CI [27.46, 31.26], t(376) = 30.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.03], t(376) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-3.16, -0.06], t(376) = -2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, -6.07e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-3.53, 0.94], t(376) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,213.407 | 1,225.244 | -603.704 | 1,207.407 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,214.103 | 1,237.776 | -601.052 | 1,202.103 | 5.304 | 3 | 0.151 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,843.055 | 1,854.891 | -918.528 | 1,837.055 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,843.157 | 1,866.830 | -915.579 | 1,831.157 | 5.898 | 3 | 0.117 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,322.782 | 2,334.619 | -1,158.391 | 2,316.782 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,309.978 | 2,333.651 | -1,148.989 | 2,297.978 | 18.804 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,589.648 | 1,601.484 | -791.824 | 1,583.648 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,591.777 | 1,615.450 | -789.888 | 1,579.777 | 3.871 | 3 | 0.276 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,923.727 | 1,935.564 | -958.864 | 1,917.727 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,919.400 | 1,943.072 | -953.700 | 1,907.400 | 10.328 | 3 | 0.016 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,814.557 | 1,826.393 | -904.279 | 1,808.557 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,808.667 | 1,832.340 | -898.334 | 1,796.667 | 11.890 | 3 | 0.008 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,716.142 | 1,727.979 | -855.071 | 1,710.142 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,710.934 | 1,734.606 | -849.467 | 1,698.934 | 11.209 | 3 | 0.011 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,721.059 | 2,732.896 | -1,357.530 | 2,715.059 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,721.123 | 2,744.795 | -1,354.561 | 2,709.123 | 5.937 | 3 | 0.115 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,155.193 | 2,167.029 | -1,074.597 | 2,149.193 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,157.639 | 2,181.311 | -1,072.819 | 2,145.639 | 3.554 | 3 | 0.314 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,326.034 | 2,337.870 | -1,160.017 | 2,320.034 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,328.089 | 2,351.762 | -1,158.045 | 2,316.089 | 3.944 | 3 | 0.268 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,496.068 | 2,507.905 | -1,245.034 | 2,490.068 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,494.435 | 2,518.107 | -1,241.217 | 2,482.435 | 7.634 | 3 | 0.054 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,969.027 | 1,980.864 | -981.514 | 1,963.027 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,972.407 | 1,996.080 | -980.204 | 1,960.407 | 2.620 | 3 | 0.454 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,355.442 | 2,367.279 | -1,174.721 | 2,349.442 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,358.063 | 2,381.735 | -1,173.031 | 2,346.063 | 3.380 | 3 | 0.337 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,468.416 | 2,480.252 | -1,231.208 | 2,462.416 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,469.974 | 2,493.646 | -1,228.987 | 2,457.974 | 4.442 | 3 | 0.218 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,151.576 | 2,163.412 | -1,072.788 | 2,145.576 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,138.517 | 2,162.190 | -1,063.259 | 2,126.517 | 19.059 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,801.464 | 1,813.300 | -897.732 | 1,795.464 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,799.316 | 1,822.989 | -893.658 | 1,787.316 | 8.148 | 3 | 0.043 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,886.517 | 1,898.353 | -940.258 | 1,880.517 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,884.541 | 1,908.214 | -936.271 | 1,872.541 | 7.976 | 3 | 0.047 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,901.632 | 1,913.468 | -947.816 | 1,895.632 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,899.678 | 1,923.350 | -943.839 | 1,887.678 | 7.954 | 3 | 0.047 |
els | null | 3 | 2,349.275 | 2,361.111 | -1,171.637 | 2,343.275 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,345.163 | 2,368.836 | -1,166.582 | 2,333.163 | 10.111 | 3 | 0.018 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,673.883 | 2,685.719 | -1,333.941 | 2,667.883 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,661.197 | 2,684.870 | -1,324.598 | 2,649.197 | 18.686 | 3 | 0.000 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,205.224 | 2,217.060 | -1,099.612 | 2,199.224 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,203.563 | 2,227.236 | -1,095.782 | 2,191.563 | 7.661 | 3 | 0.054 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,072.510 | 2,084.347 | -1,033.255 | 2,066.510 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,066.146 | 2,089.818 | -1,027.073 | 2,054.146 | 12.365 | 3 | 0.006 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,625.529 | 2,637.365 | -1,309.764 | 2,619.529 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,620.454 | 2,644.126 | -1,304.227 | 2,608.454 | 11.075 | 3 | 0.011 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,411.775 | 1,423.612 | -702.888 | 1,405.775 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,417.131 | 1,440.804 | -702.566 | 1,405.131 | 0.644 | 3 | 0.886 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,978.582 | 1,990.418 | -986.291 | 1,972.582 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,977.967 | 2,001.640 | -982.984 | 1,965.967 | 6.615 | 3 | 0.085 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,116.237 | 2,128.073 | -1,055.118 | 2,110.237 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,113.358 | 2,137.030 | -1,050.679 | 2,101.358 | 8.879 | 3 | 0.031 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,502.245 | 2,514.081 | -1,248.122 | 2,496.245 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,499.287 | 2,522.960 | -1,243.644 | 2,487.287 | 8.958 | 3 | 0.030 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,147.295 | 2,159.131 | -1,070.647 | 2,141.295 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,145.050 | 2,168.723 | -1,066.525 | 2,133.050 | 8.244 | 3 | 0.041 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,773.399 | 1,785.236 | -883.700 | 1,767.399 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,768.979 | 1,792.652 | -878.490 | 1,756.979 | 10.420 | 3 | 0.015 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,906.031 | 1,917.868 | -950.016 | 1,900.031 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,899.425 | 1,923.097 | -943.712 | 1,887.425 | 12.607 | 3 | 0.006 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,991.993 | 2,003.829 | -992.996 | 1,985.993 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,984.510 | 2,008.183 | -986.255 | 1,972.510 | 13.483 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,995.512 | 2,007.348 | -994.756 | 1,989.512 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,990.642 | 2,014.315 | -989.321 | 1,978.642 | 10.870 | 3 | 0.012 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,000.552 | 2,012.388 | -997.276 | 1,994.552 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,991.587 | 2,015.259 | -989.793 | 1,979.587 | 14.965 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,768.111 | 2,779.948 | -1,381.056 | 2,762.111 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,757.782 | 2,781.454 | -1,372.891 | 2,745.782 | 16.330 | 3 | 0.001 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 119 | 3.20 ± 1.21 | 119 | 3.08 ± 1.21 | 0.454 | 0.125 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 75 | 3.24 ± 1.18 | -0.041 | 69 | 3.43 ± 1.17 | -0.365 | 0.340 | -0.199 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 119 | 18.01 ± 2.98 | 119 | 17.85 ± 2.98 | 0.679 | 0.092 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 75 | 17.80 ± 2.73 | 0.120 | 69 | 18.50 ± 2.69 | -0.376 | 0.121 | -0.404 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 119 | 29.82 ± 5.70 | 119 | 30.13 ± 5.70 | 0.674 | -0.106 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 75 | 30.52 ± 5.10 | -0.241 | 69 | 32.10 ± 5.02 | -0.672 | 0.063 | -0.537 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 119 | 11.61 ± 2.11 | 119 | 11.70 ± 2.11 | 0.759 | -0.065 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 75 | 11.69 ± 1.96 | -0.058 | 69 | 12.08 ± 1.93 | -0.294 | 0.231 | -0.301 |
ras_goal | 1st | 119 | 17.23 ± 3.33 | 119 | 17.58 ± 3.33 | 0.414 | -0.189 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 75 | 17.54 ± 3.03 | -0.168 | 69 | 18.44 ± 2.98 | -0.459 | 0.075 | -0.480 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 119 | 13.16 ± 2.92 | 119 | 13.34 ± 2.92 | 0.642 | -0.113 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 75 | 13.42 ± 2.64 | -0.168 | 69 | 14.16 ± 2.59 | -0.525 | 0.093 | -0.471 |
ras_domination | 1st | 119 | 10.02 ± 2.43 | 119 | 9.62 ± 2.43 | 0.210 | 0.250 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 75 | 10.02 ± 2.27 | -0.001 | 69 | 10.48 ± 2.25 | -0.545 | 0.220 | -0.294 |
symptom | 1st | 119 | 31.36 ± 9.94 | 119 | 30.12 ± 9.94 | 0.335 | 0.257 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 75 | 30.31 ± 8.81 | 0.218 | 69 | 28.74 ± 8.64 | 0.285 | 0.282 | 0.323 |
slof_work | 1st | 119 | 22.27 ± 4.58 | 119 | 22.08 ± 4.58 | 0.745 | 0.077 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 75 | 22.53 ± 4.15 | -0.102 | 69 | 22.81 ± 4.08 | -0.291 | 0.683 | -0.112 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 119 | 24.68 ± 5.73 | 119 | 25.48 ± 5.73 | 0.284 | -0.255 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 75 | 24.59 ± 5.19 | 0.028 | 69 | 26.16 ± 5.11 | -0.217 | 0.069 | -0.501 |
satisfaction | 1st | 119 | 19.90 ± 7.23 | 119 | 21.08 ± 7.23 | 0.210 | -0.312 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 75 | 20.77 ± 6.49 | -0.231 | 69 | 22.26 ± 6.38 | -0.314 | 0.166 | -0.395 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 119 | 10.77 ± 3.74 | 119 | 10.96 ± 3.74 | 0.704 | -0.102 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 75 | 11.15 ± 3.31 | -0.211 | 69 | 11.22 ± 3.25 | -0.147 | 0.900 | -0.038 |
mhc_social | 1st | 119 | 15.34 ± 6.12 | 119 | 15.32 ± 6.12 | 0.975 | 0.008 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 75 | 16.00 ± 5.45 | -0.212 | 69 | 15.97 ± 5.36 | -0.212 | 0.977 | 0.009 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 119 | 21.84 ± 7.07 | 119 | 21.90 ± 7.07 | 0.949 | -0.016 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 75 | 22.83 ± 6.31 | -0.278 | 69 | 22.61 ± 6.20 | -0.199 | 0.832 | 0.062 |
resilisnce | 1st | 119 | 16.29 ± 4.42 | 119 | 17.02 ± 4.42 | 0.208 | -0.288 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 75 | 17.04 ± 4.03 | -0.298 | 69 | 18.51 ± 3.97 | -0.597 | 0.028 | -0.587 |
social_provision | 1st | 119 | 13.24 ± 2.84 | 119 | 13.95 ± 2.84 | 0.056 | -0.441 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 75 | 13.06 ± 2.59 | 0.112 | 69 | 14.27 ± 2.55 | -0.202 | 0.005 | -0.754 |
els_value_living | 1st | 119 | 16.88 ± 3.20 | 119 | 17.25 ± 3.20 | 0.373 | -0.210 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 75 | 17.21 ± 2.90 | -0.189 | 69 | 17.92 ± 2.86 | -0.376 | 0.145 | -0.397 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 119 | 12.50 ± 3.34 | 119 | 13.17 ± 3.34 | 0.126 | -0.388 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 75 | 12.75 ± 2.98 | -0.142 | 69 | 13.72 ± 2.93 | -0.325 | 0.049 | -0.570 |
els | 1st | 119 | 29.39 ± 6.05 | 119 | 30.42 ± 6.05 | 0.189 | -0.346 | ||
els | 2nd | 75 | 29.99 ± 5.38 | -0.201 | 69 | 31.64 ± 5.28 | -0.408 | 0.064 | -0.553 |
social_connect | 1st | 119 | 27.56 ± 9.23 | 119 | 26.53 ± 9.23 | 0.389 | 0.233 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 75 | 27.33 ± 8.16 | 0.051 | 69 | 23.54 ± 8.01 | 0.675 | 0.005 | 0.857 |
shs_agency | 1st | 119 | 13.97 ± 5.08 | 119 | 14.92 ± 5.08 | 0.154 | -0.388 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 75 | 14.35 ± 4.49 | -0.155 | 69 | 15.72 ± 4.40 | -0.331 | 0.066 | -0.564 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 119 | 15.43 ± 4.11 | 119 | 16.39 ± 4.11 | 0.074 | -0.442 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 75 | 16.06 ± 3.70 | -0.293 | 69 | 17.20 ± 3.64 | -0.378 | 0.063 | -0.527 |
shs | 1st | 119 | 29.40 ± 8.77 | 119 | 31.30 ± 8.77 | 0.096 | -0.453 | ||
shs | 2nd | 75 | 30.42 ± 7.75 | -0.243 | 69 | 32.91 ± 7.60 | -0.384 | 0.052 | -0.594 |
esteem | 1st | 119 | 12.80 ± 1.60 | 119 | 12.71 ± 1.60 | 0.685 | 0.071 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 75 | 12.67 ± 1.54 | 0.111 | 69 | 12.67 ± 1.53 | 0.036 | 0.983 | -0.005 |
mlq_search | 1st | 119 | 14.49 ± 3.46 | 119 | 15.09 ± 3.46 | 0.178 | -0.274 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 75 | 15.33 ± 3.23 | -0.382 | 69 | 15.19 ± 3.20 | -0.043 | 0.788 | 0.065 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 119 | 13.31 ± 4.22 | 119 | 13.69 ± 4.22 | 0.490 | -0.151 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 75 | 14.18 ± 3.88 | -0.349 | 69 | 14.49 ± 3.83 | -0.319 | 0.636 | -0.122 |
mlq | 1st | 119 | 27.80 ± 6.96 | 119 | 28.78 ± 6.96 | 0.277 | -0.235 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 75 | 29.52 ± 6.42 | -0.411 | 69 | 29.68 ± 6.35 | -0.215 | 0.878 | -0.039 |
empower | 1st | 119 | 19.00 ± 4.53 | 119 | 19.51 ± 4.53 | 0.384 | -0.211 | ||
empower | 2nd | 75 | 19.90 ± 4.09 | -0.369 | 69 | 20.14 ± 4.03 | -0.259 | 0.718 | -0.101 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 119 | 14.42 ± 2.58 | 119 | 14.35 ± 2.58 | 0.841 | 0.038 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 75 | 14.69 ± 2.45 | -0.154 | 69 | 15.23 ± 2.43 | -0.497 | 0.185 | -0.305 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 119 | 11.76 ± 3.08 | 119 | 11.74 ± 3.08 | 0.966 | 0.008 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 75 | 11.31 ± 2.91 | 0.217 | 69 | 10.65 ± 2.88 | 0.528 | 0.174 | 0.319 |
sss_affective | 1st | 119 | 10.40 ± 3.70 | 119 | 10.57 ± 3.70 | 0.726 | -0.087 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 75 | 9.99 ± 3.32 | 0.215 | 69 | 9.47 ± 3.27 | 0.569 | 0.347 | 0.267 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 119 | 10.22 ± 3.76 | 119 | 10.07 ± 3.76 | 0.757 | 0.079 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 75 | 9.53 ± 3.36 | 0.359 | 69 | 9.30 ± 3.31 | 0.398 | 0.686 | 0.117 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 119 | 8.74 ± 3.75 | 119 | 9.07 ± 3.75 | 0.501 | -0.169 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 75 | 8.20 ± 3.36 | 0.277 | 69 | 7.95 ± 3.31 | 0.574 | 0.654 | 0.128 |
sss | 1st | 119 | 29.36 ± 10.57 | 119 | 29.71 ± 10.57 | 0.802 | -0.070 | ||
sss | 2nd | 75 | 27.75 ± 9.31 | 0.327 | 69 | 26.80 ± 9.12 | 0.589 | 0.537 | 0.193 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(339.42) = -0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.19)
2st
t(377.88) = 0.95, p = 0.340, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.57)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(291.91) = -0.41, p = 0.679, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.60)
2st
t(369.43) = 1.55, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.59)
ras_confidence
1st
t(278.42) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)
2st
t(359.14) = 1.87, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.08 to 3.24)
ras_willingness
1st
t(297.96) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.62)
2st
t(372.16) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.03)
ras_goal
1st
t(287.29) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.20)
2st
t(366.67) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.88)
ras_reliance
1st
t(281.83) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.92)
2st
t(362.44) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.59)
ras_domination
1st
t(307.02) = -1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.22)
2st
t(374.86) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.21)
symptom
1st
t(273.63) = -0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.29)
2st
t(353.49) = -1.08, p = 0.282, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.43 to 1.29)
slof_work
1st
t(284.80) = -0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.97)
2st
t(364.88) = 0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.63)
slof_relationship
1st
t(284.13) = 1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.26)
2st
t(364.36) = 1.82, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.25)
satisfaction
1st
t(279.58) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.02)
2st
t(360.33) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.60)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(272.66) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.14)
2st
t(352.18) = 0.13, p = 0.900, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.14)
mhc_social
1st
t(276.25) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.54)
2st
t(356.74) = -0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.75)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(276.76) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.86)
2st
t(357.33) = -0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.83)
resilisnce
1st
t(288.75) = 1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.85)
2st
t(367.61) = 2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.16 to 2.78)
social_provision
1st
t(287.94) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.43)
2st
t(367.10) = 2.82, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.37 to 2.05)
els_value_living
1st
t(285.37) = 0.89, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.19)
2st
t(365.31) = 1.46, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.64)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(278.00) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.52)
2st
t(358.70) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.95)
els
1st
t(274.59) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.58)
2st
t(354.73) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.10 to 3.40)
social_connect
1st
t(272.37) = -0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.32)
2st
t(351.77) = -2.82, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-6.45 to -1.15)
shs_agency
1st
t(271.95) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.24)
2st
t(351.19) = 1.84, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.83)
shs_pathway
1st
t(280.49) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.01)
2st
t(361.21) = 1.86, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.34)
shs
1st
t(272.06) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.14)
2st
t(351.34) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.02 to 5.01)
esteem
1st
t(330.66) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.32)
2st
t(377.62) = 0.02, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.51)
mlq_search
1st
t(304.38) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)
2st
t(374.22) = -0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.91)
mlq_presence
1st
t(293.57) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.46)
2st
t(370.27) = 0.47, p = 0.636, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.57)
mlq
1st
t(295.74) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.76)
2st
t(371.26) = 0.15, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.26)
empower
1st
t(282.45) = 0.87, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.67)
2st
t(362.97) = 0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.58)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(315.84) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.59)
2st
t(376.41) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.34)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(311.75) = -0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.77)
2st
t(375.80) = -1.36, p = 0.174, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.29)
sss_affective
1st
t(280.20) = 0.35, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.11)
2st
t(360.93) = -0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.56)
sss_behavior
1st
t(277.52) = -0.31, p = 0.757, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.81)
2st
t(358.18) = -0.41, p = 0.686, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.87)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(278.74) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.29)
2st
t(359.47) = -0.45, p = 0.654, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.84)
sss
1st
t(270.24) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.35 to 3.04)
2st
t(348.65) = -0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.97 to 2.07)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(186.39) = 2.29, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.05 to 0.64)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(165.10) = 2.29, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.22)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(159.52) = 4.05, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.01 to 2.93)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(167.63) = 1.80, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(163.18) = 2.79, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.46)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(160.92) = 3.18, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(171.49) = 3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.37)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(157.55) = -1.71, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.97 to 0.21)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(162.15) = 1.76, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.55)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(161.87) = 1.32, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.70)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(159.99) = 1.90, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.42)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(157.15) = 0.88, p = 0.756, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(158.62) = 1.28, p = 0.407, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.66)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(158.83) = 1.20, p = 0.463, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.88)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(163.78) = 3.63, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.31)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(163.45) = 1.22, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.84)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(162.38) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.24)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(159.34) = 1.96, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.11)
els
1st vs 2st
t(157.94) = 2.46, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.20)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(157.03) = -4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.45 to -1.54)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(156.86) = 1.99, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.60)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(160.37) = 2.28, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.52)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(156.90) = 2.31, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.99)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(182.11) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.33)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(170.36) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.81)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(165.79) = 1.95, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.61)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(166.70) = 1.31, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.25)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(161.18) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.42)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(175.33) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.44)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(173.54) = -3.25, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.43)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(160.25) = -3.44, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.74 to -0.47)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(159.15) = -2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.39 to -0.14)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(159.65) = -3.47, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.48)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(156.16) = -3.54, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.53 to -1.28)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(180.71) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.33)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(162.19) = -0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.33)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(157.33) = 1.51, p = 0.267, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.63)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(164.39) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.48)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(160.52) = 1.06, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.90)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(158.56) = 1.05, p = 0.588, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.75)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(167.74) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.49)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(155.61) = -1.36, p = 0.349, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.47)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(159.62) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.05)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(159.38) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.89)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(157.75) = 1.45, p = 0.298, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.06)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(155.26) = 1.32, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.95)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(156.55) = 1.33, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.62)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(156.73) = 1.74, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.12)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(161.05) = 1.88, p = 0.124, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.53)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(160.75) = -0.70, p = 0.965, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.68 to 0.32)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(159.83) = 1.19, p = 0.473, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.89)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(157.18) = 0.89, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.78)
els
1st vs 2st
t(155.96) = 1.26, p = 0.419, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.54)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(155.16) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.17)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(155.01) = 0.97, p = 0.669, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.14)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(158.07) = 1.84, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.32)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(155.05) = 1.52, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.34)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(176.98) = -0.72, p = 0.950, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.23)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(166.76) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.53)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(162.79) = 2.21, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.65)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(163.58) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.41 to 3.02)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(158.77) = 2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.66)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(171.09) = 0.98, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.82)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(169.53) = -1.39, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.19)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(157.97) = -1.35, p = 0.356, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.19)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(157.01) = -2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.29 to -0.09)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(157.44) = -1.74, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.07)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(154.40) = -2.04, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.17 to -0.05)